be a reason for shortening the prayers. Thus, in opposition to this fact, the prevailing view at the present time is to advance the benefit and wisdom in place of the reason, and to make the judgement in accordance with that. Such an interpretation is most definitely earthly, not heavenly.

The Second

The Second: At the present time eyes are fixed primarily on worldly happiness, whereas the Shari‘a looks primarily to happiness in the hereafter, and to happiness in this world in second place and indirectly as leading to that of the hereafter. That is to say, the prevailing attitude at this time is alien to the spirit of the Shari‘a; in which case, it may not make interpretations in its name.

The Third

The Third: There is a rule: Necessity makes permissible what is forbidden. [^1] This rule is not universal; necessity makes licit what is forbidden as long as it is not by way of what is forbidden. But if something has become a necessity due to abuse and for illicit reasons, this necessity may not be the basis of ordinances permitting it, nor form an excuse. For example, if, through misuse of his will someone makes himself drunk in an unlawful way, according to scholars of the Shari‘a, his actions act against him and he may not be deemed excused. If he divorces his wife, the divorce is in force. And if he commits a crime, he receives the punishment. But if it is not due to misuse of his will, the divorce is not in force, nor does he receive punishment. And, for example, even if an alcoholic is addicted to alcohol to the degree of necessity, he may not say: “It is a necessity, and lawful for me.”

[^1]:al-‘Ajlūnī, Kashf al-Khafā’, ii, 35.

Thus, at this time there are many matters which have reached the degree of necessity and have taken on the form of a general calamity afflicting people, and which, since they have arisen from ill choice, illicit desires, and forbidden acts, may not be the basis of rulings permitting them and making what is unlawful lawful. However, since those who make interpretations at the present time make those necessities the basis of legal rulings, their interpretations are earthly, the products of their own fancies, tainted by philosophy, and cannot be heavenly or revealed, or conformable with the Shari‘a. For if exercise of authority concerning the divine ordinances of the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth and interference in His servants’ worship is without the Creator’s permission, such exercise and interference are rejected. An example is some of the heedless and neglectful approving changes in such marks of Islam as the Friday Sermon, and substituting the language of each country for Arabic. Two reasons are given:

The First: “So that the mass of Muslims will understand current